Upgrading to an IntelMac- a surprise.
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Jim on 11 Jul 2010 06:47 Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: > > > > As for the, whatsit, Magic Mouse (who > > > dreams up those names..), I really really like it. > > > > Me too, but like I say, they're a bit Marmite. > > Like most things, yes. But since I installed MagicPrefs, I like it a > whole lot more than I did. Yes, MagicPrefs or Better Touch Tool improve it enormously. Its Apple-allowed abilities are too limited. Jim -- "Microsoft admitted its Vista operating system was a 'less good product' in what IT experts have described as the most ambitious understatement since the captain of the Titanic reported some slightly damp tablecloths." http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
From: Chris Ridd on 11 Jul 2010 15:08 On 2010-07-11 11:28:05 +0100, Jim said: > Flavio Matani <flavio_mataniTAKETHISBITOUT(a)mac.com> wrote: > >>> I like them both -almost- equally, but I slightly prefer the chiclet. I >>> think the build quality is better. >> >> I didn't like the Alu keyboard at first, but now I find it difficult to >> go back to the old style ones. As for the, whatsit, Magic Mouse (who >> dreams up those names..), I really really like it. > > Me too, but like I say, they're a bit Marmite. Black and sticky? -- Chris
From: Rowland McDonnell on 12 Jul 2010 00:09 Rob <ngonly(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell wrote: > > Rob<ngonly(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Peter Ceresole wrote: > >>> Okay, I've gone from my iG5 to and InteliMac and as I expected, by > >>> comparison it's blindingly fast, especially with Street View and Flash > >>> stuff like the iPlayer. No complaints at all. > >>> > >> > >> Nice, aren't they :-) > > > > My somewhat older 3.06 GHz Core2Duo iMac is about as fast as my old > > 2.5GHz 4G5 - faster on some things, slower on others, less snappy UI. > > > > I am kinda surprised, although perhaps some applications run better on > the Power PC code? Why be surprised? Four 2.5GHz 64 bit cores can be expected to out-power a pair of 3.06GHz 64 bit CPU cores, all other things being equal. But they're not... The 4G5 had a better graphics card, and those old G5s are stormingly fast at streaming operations, so the 4G5 can rip DVDs and CDs rather quicker than the new machine. Definitely less snappy, the newer Mac. >Admittedly my 'old' C2D does feel a bit ploddy > starting some apps, especially MS Office, but is pretty good once > they're running. This i5 SSD is far and away the fastest computer I've > used - clicked Excel, one, one and bit seconds - up and running. That slow? You must have managed to avoid rapidly responding computers, then. > > I wonder if the current iMacs are at least as snappy as my old 4G5? > > > > It's not just snappy - they are nice to look at (YMMV), convenient with > good screen (although again, not for all). <shrug> I'm not overly bothered about that. I want a tool that's good to use. For one thing, I'd quite like new Macs all to be as snappy as the old b&w compact Macs. Very few of them are - our old 4G5 is the only PowerMac I've met with as much snappy as my old Mac Plus. I've not yet met an Intel Mac with the same snappy as a Mac Plus. Pathetic, innit? Rowland. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Rob on 12 Jul 2010 03:42 On 12/07/2010 05:09, Rowland McDonnell wrote: > Rob<ngonly(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Rowland McDonnell wrote: >>> Rob<ngonly(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Peter Ceresole wrote: >>>>> Okay, I've gone from my iG5 to and InteliMac and as I expected, by >>>>> comparison it's blindingly fast, especially with Street View and Flash >>>>> stuff like the iPlayer. No complaints at all. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Nice, aren't they :-) >>> >>> My somewhat older 3.06 GHz Core2Duo iMac is about as fast as my old >>> 2.5GHz 4G5 - faster on some things, slower on others, less snappy UI. >>> >> >> I am kinda surprised, although perhaps some applications run better on >> the Power PC code? > > Why be surprised? Four 2.5GHz 64 bit cores can be expected to out-power > a pair of 3.06GHz 64 bit CPU cores, all other things being equal. > > But they're not... > > The 4G5 had a better graphics card, and those old G5s are stormingly > fast at streaming operations, so the 4G5 can rip DVDs and CDs rather > quicker than the new machine. > Interesting - the i5 takes about 15 minutes to rip a commercial DVD to an 800MB avi - how long does the 4G5 take? > Definitely less snappy, the newer Mac. > OK, point taken. >> Admittedly my 'old' C2D does feel a bit ploddy >> starting some apps, especially MS Office, but is pretty good once >> they're running. This i5 SSD is far and away the fastest computer I've >> used - clicked Excel, one, one and bit seconds - up and running. > > That slow? You must have managed to avoid rapidly responding computers, > then. > Could you give me an example of a rapidly responding computer? >>> I wonder if the current iMacs are at least as snappy as my old 4G5? >>> >> >> It's not just snappy - they are nice to look at (YMMV), convenient with >> good screen (although again, not for all). > > <shrug> I'm not overly bothered about that. I want a tool that's good > to use. > Which I find the iMac is, YMMV. > For one thing, I'd quite like new Macs all to be as snappy as the old > b&w compact Macs. Very few of them are - our old 4G5 is the only > PowerMac I've met with as much snappy as my old Mac Plus. > > I've not yet met an Intel Mac with the same snappy as a Mac Plus. > > Pathetic, innit? > I assume by 'snappy' you mean quick to respond? I get the impression you're trying to trick me in some way? Or making a joke? Rob
From: Rowland McDonnell on 12 Jul 2010 13:35
Rob <ngonly(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/07/2010 05:09, Rowland McDonnell wrote: > > Rob<ngonly(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Rowland McDonnell wrote: > >>> Rob<ngonly(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Peter Ceresole wrote: > >>>>> Okay, I've gone from my iG5 to and InteliMac and as I expected, by > >>>>> comparison it's blindingly fast, especially with Street View and Flash > >>>>> stuff like the iPlayer. No complaints at all. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Nice, aren't they :-) > >>> > >>> My somewhat older 3.06 GHz Core2Duo iMac is about as fast as my old > >>> 2.5GHz 4G5 - faster on some things, slower on others, less snappy UI. > >>> > >> > >> I am kinda surprised, although perhaps some applications run better on > >> the Power PC code? > > > > Why be surprised? Four 2.5GHz 64 bit cores can be expected to out-power > > a pair of 3.06GHz 64 bit CPU cores, all other things being equal. > > > > But they're not... > > > > The 4G5 had a better graphics card, and those old G5s are stormingly > > fast at streaming operations, so the 4G5 can rip DVDs and CDs rather > > quicker than the new machine. > > > > Interesting - the i5 takes about 15 minutes to rip a commercial DVD to > an 800MB avi - how long does the 4G5 take? No idea. It broke, so I've not got it to test, and I'm not sure either the 4G5 or the new iMac can manage even to read the data off `a commercial DVD' in 15 minutes, let alone re-encode it, a job which I expect to see taking hours. > > Definitely less snappy, the newer Mac. > > OK, point taken. > > >> Admittedly my 'old' C2D does feel a bit ploddy > >> starting some apps, especially MS Office, but is pretty good once > >> they're running. This i5 SSD is far and away the fastest computer I've > >> used - clicked Excel, one, one and bit seconds - up and running. > > > > That slow? You must have managed to avoid rapidly responding computers, > > then. > > > > Could you give me an example of a rapidly responding computer? <shrug> BBC Micro with software in ROM. The old HP 9000 `snake box' as it was called, that I met in 1990. 128MB RAM, 1GB HDD, 90MHz CPU - but it seemed about ten times faster than the 99MHz 486 whatevers in the rest of the lab... > >>> I wonder if the current iMacs are at least as snappy as my old 4G5? > >>> > >> > >> It's not just snappy - they are nice to look at (YMMV), convenient with > >> good screen (although again, not for all). > > > > <shrug> I'm not overly bothered about that. I want a tool that's good > > to use. > > > > Which I find the iMac is, YMMV. I can't say any tool is good to use unless I can learn how to use it and try it out. With most modern software, I can't learn how to use it because it's got no manual. So most modern software counts as `useless tools' to me. Older software is much more use to me. > > For one thing, I'd quite like new Macs all to be as snappy as the old > > b&w compact Macs. Very few of them are - our old 4G5 is the only > > PowerMac I've met with as much snappy as my old Mac Plus. > > > > I've not yet met an Intel Mac with the same snappy as a Mac Plus. > > > > Pathetic, innit? > > I assume by 'snappy' you mean quick to respond? Yeah, I mean the instant response from the UI that you get with a CLI or with an old (esp. pre-MacOS 8) Mac. They worked hard to get the snappy on the old line of Macs - before System 7, you've got an efficient UI. Then it got less efficient - although the b&w Macs are still snappy with System 7 versions, I've found. > I get the impression > you're trying to trick me in some way? Sorry, not my intention. >Or making a joke? <puzzled> Not sure I can see anything that might be considered humorous. I've got this huge humming beast of a computer, with two 3.06GHz 64 bit CPU cores, a monster graphics card, a line to the internet running at 8 Mb/s, gigabit Ethernet around the house - and while it's obviously considerably faster than the older Macs, the UI doesn't respond as `snappily' as it does on my 8MHz 16/32 bit single core no graphics card Mac Plus - with its <cough> fast 230,400 bit/s serial links to the outside world and all of 4MB RAM (maxed out, woo!). Up until not so many generations of MacOS X/MacTeX ago, LaTeX jobs on modern Macs were taking about as long as they did on the 90MHz HP/UX box I mention above - TeX writes to a console as it runs, and that used to be *horribly* slow on Macs. They've got that going faster, so TeX now runs on my gigahertz Mac at `faster than the old dog slow speed, which was caused by UI sluggishness'. Nope, I don't know if it was the OS or the TeX distro that had the fix, but: the fact that there was inefficiency to overcome in the first place is the issue. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking |